Wallace provides an extremely solid historical account, some interesting political theory and informative economic analysis. But above all, she should be praised for explicating the single most frustrating aspect of the Howard Government from the point of view of anyone who maintains any regard at all for the integrity of the intellectual conscience: namely, the reality/rhetoric gap in its approach to politics. Those with intellectual integrity have known the true nature John Howard's ideological platform all along. However, as Wallace demonstrates in her article, Howard has persistently dressed his policies and principles in populist, socially friendly rhetoric - and the public has bought it again and again! Work Choices has been the hidden telos towards which Howard has been heading from day one. Indeed, if he were able to get away with it, Work Choices would have been only the beginning of his libertarian revolution. Yet only since his ideological platform has become more explicit have people (i.e. lower-middle-class-working-families) begun to finally learn what the Howard Government is all about. This is why many left-leaning intellectuals were actually secretly satisfied when the Liberal Party won control of the Senate in 2004; we knew they'd let fly (as they have) and the public would finally become aware of what we have been trying to tell them from day one!

Agreed, this is an excellent even-handed analysis. However, I'm not sure about Wallace's contention that the libertarians are intent on policing cultural practices. I would have thought the combination of economic liberalism and social conservatism is a characteristic of Howard the individual, not the libertarian movement.

As an aside, I would be interested to hear Chris' assessment of Peter Hartcher's piece in the SMH that the rock solid perception of Howard as a superior economic manager virtually assures him of security a fifth term later this year.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/babushka-politics-tough-to-crack/2007/06/14/1181414459633.html

Personally, I think Hartcher has grown a little two fond of his theory of Howard's unassailability on this issue. I detect a sense that the electorate is cottoning onto the fact that the economy's good fortune in recent years has been globally driven and that the government's role is minimal.

I can still remember the exact moment Australia became a libertarian nation. I was in hell, practicing my double axel.

It appears that libertarianism is going to be the next political philosophy distorted by attacks made by people who know absolutely nothing about it, until it is equated with a philosophy that bears no resemblance to what the term actually means whatsoever. The first of these was "liberal," as in "one that follows the tenets of liberalism." Yet nowadays, as the result of attacks made against it, the term "liberal" is now equated with "left-leaning person."

Now libertarianism, essentially the modern incarnation of classic liberalism, is being equated with a form of heirarchical conservatism that allows the abuse of the rights of minorities by the tyranny of the majority - never mind the fact that the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" was coined perjoratively as a view of the inevitable result of democracy and majority rule.

By your assertion, "The libertarian logic is that, since personal freedom and the existence of free markets are inextricably entwined, and since - as Bork puts it - "vigorous" economies are vulnerable to being "enfeebled" by particular cultural practices, then the champions of personal freedom have a licence to police cultural practices - in the interests of freedom and economic vigour.

Thus libertarians can reason that difference (for example, multiculturalism, homosexuality) must be eliminated so that the economy can function better - reasoning that is absurd, to say the least."

The reasoning is only absurd because it's not just wrong, it's been plucked out of nowhere, and imposed on a belief system that is completely incompatable with it.

CONTINUED>>

In fact, this reasoning is shot to pieces by some of the very core beliefs of the libertarian; self-ownership and individual choice (INCLUDING sexual choice). Self-ownership, or self-determination, holds that every individual, REGARDLESS of race, creed, religion or orientation, should have the right to do what they want, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others (eg by abuse, by criminal behaviour against them, and ESPECIALLY what you suggest libertarians want, which appears to be either mass genocide, forced deportation, or marginalisation, of all homosexuals or people of different ethnicity. The reasoning that libertarians want the eradication of difference for the benefit of the economy is ridiculous; to put it at the most base level possible, just because libertarians believe in a free market, doesn't mean they want to get down on their knees and fellate it).

I'd continue this rant by pointing out that the granting of special privileges to some businesses at the expense of others, and their consumers - a Howard government hallmark - is also opposed to libertarianism, but I think if I went that far I'd run the risk of taking you seriously. I sincerely suggest, though, that if you're going to use philosophical terms with any sort of authority, you'd best find out what they mean first.

The real shame here is, if you take away the horrible misuse of libertarianism for a byword of the evils of Howard, Reagan and Thatcher, this really has the potential to be a probing, well-argued piece.

Oh well.

Christine you are so right.A most appropriate framework to place Howard, and it is just Howard.There can be no successor to his idiosyncratic 'vision', agenda and style.
I don't see him as being modestly bright rather moderately bright and as cunning as a fox. Guided as he was by public reaction and opinion he seemed to me to be an incremental achiever.
But he appears to have become bolder and sooner or later a bold fox is a dead fox provided of course that the hunter is determined and skilled.
Moving further and further from his old bolt holes he does not appear to have anywhere to retreat over climate change and Work Choices.
Howard is a product of this environment and as such we all share some responsibility for his success.He has been aided and abetted by a media which is one of the more compliant amongst the countries we like to compare ourselves.
Bruce Haigh

I think the explanations of Howard's election successes lies somewhere among the intelligent thesis lodged here by Chris Wallace and those of Judith Brett ('Relaxed and Comfortable: The Liberal Party's Australia'), Peter Harcher ('Bipolar Nation: How to Win the 2007 Election'), and David Marr ('His Master's Voice: The Corruption of Public Debate Under Howard').

Was the 1996 election, in part at least, more a rejection of Keating and the subsequent elections a successive rejection of me-too Beazley and bover-boy Latham than an enthusiastic embrace of Howardism? Did voters vote more against the ALP than for Howard?

It's interesting in that context to watch the hysteria of Howard and his attack dogs when the new kid looked to be gaining the traction in the electorate (and in the Parliament) that former Opposition leaders never gained.

The focus on Howard as a clever politician may yet bite the Coalition when the inevitiable question arises in the campaign: will we in fact be electing de facto Peter Costello, Malcolm Turnbull or Julie Bishop as PM? How much will that question - which Howard will find increasingly difficult to fob off this time - neutralise the so-called Howard factor?

I'm not sure, but I think the age-tenure question could become the ALP rabbit-out-of-the-hat. The Coalition's 'best asset' may by pure effluxion of time become a liability. Time can be a treacherous thief.